Beaker would be most appropriate for measuring the approximate volume of a liquid.
Answer:
Part a)
Part b)
Part c)
Explanation:
Part a)
As we know that the friction force on two boxes is given as
Now we know by Newton's II law
so we have
Part b)
For block B we know that net force on it will push it forward with same acceleration so we have
Part c)
If Alex push from other side then also the acceleration will be same
So for box B we can say that Net force is given as
Answer:
(a) work required to lift the object is 1029 J
(b) the gravitational potential energy gained by this object is 1029 J
Explanation:
Given;
mass of the object, m = 35 kg
height through which the object was lifted, h = 3 m
(a) work required to lift the object
W = F x d
W = (mg) x h
W = 35 x 9.8 x 3
W = 1029 J
(b) the gravitational potential energy gained by this object is calculated as;
ΔP.E = Pf - Pi
where;
Pi is the initial gravitational potential energy, at initial height (hi = 0)
ΔP.E = (35 x 9.8 x 3) - (35 x 9.8 x 0)
ΔP.E = 1029 J
Answer:
2.85 s .
Explanation:
y(t) = y(0) + v₀t + 1/2 gt²
y(t) is vertical displacement , y(0) is initial position , v₀ is initial velocity and t is time required to make vertical displacement and g is acceleration due to gravity.
Here y(0) is zero , v₀ = 14 m/s , g = 9.8 m s⁻² , y(t ) = 0 , as the pumpkin after time t comes back to its initial position, that is ground .
We shall take v₀ as negative as it is in upward direction and g as positive as it acts in downward direction
Put the values in the equation above,
0 = 0 - 14t + 1/2 x 9.8 t²
14 t = 1/2 x 9.8 t²
t = 28 / 9.8
t = 2.85 s .
You asked a question. I'm about to answer it.
Sadly, I can almost guarantee that you won't understand the solution.
This realization grieves me, but there is little I can do to change it.
My explanation will be the best of which I'm capable.
Here are the Physics facts I'll use in the solution:
-- "Apparent magnitude" means how bright the star appears to us.
-- "Absolute magnitude" means the how bright the star WOULD appear
if it were located 32.6 light years from us (10 parsecs).
-- A change of 5 magnitudes means a 100 times change in brightness,
so each magnitude means brightness is multiplied or divided by ⁵√100 .
That's about 2.512... .
-- Increasing magnitude means dimmer.
Decreasing magnitude means brighter.
+5 is 10 magnitudes dimmer than -5 .
-- Apparent brightness is inversely proportional to the square
of the distance from the source (just like gravity, sound, and
the force between charges).
That's all the Physics. The rest of the solution is just arithmetic.
____________________________________________________
-- The star in the question would appear M(-5) at a distance of
32.6 light years.
-- It actually appears as a M(+5). That's 10 magnitudes dimmer than M(-5),
because of being farther away than 32.6 light years.
-- 10 magnitudes dimmer is ( ⁵√100)⁻¹⁰ = (100)^(-2) .
-- But brightness varies as the inverse square of distance,
so that exponent is (negative double) the ratio of the distances,
and the actual distance to the star is
(32.6) · (100)^(1) light years
= (32.6) · (100) light years
= approx. 3,260 light years . (roughly 1,000 parsecs)
I'll have to confess that I haven't done one of these calculations
in over 50 years, and I'm not really that confident in my result.
If somebody's health or safety depended on it, or the success of
a space mission, then I'd be strongly recommending that you get
a second opinion.
But, quite frankly, I do feel that mine is worth the 5 points.
